SUSTENANCE PAYMENTS

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20620, 19 July 1930, Page 13

SUSTENANCE PAYMENTS

OPPOSITION TO PRINCIPLE.

REFORM PARTY ATTITUDE. HELP TO INDUSTRY PREFERRED. [i;v telegraph.— special reporter.] WELLING TON, Friday. Aii uncompromising attitude to anything savouring of the "dole" will be offered liy the Reform Party, according to the statement, of the Leader of the Opposition, the Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates, in speaking in tho debate on the Unemployment Bill in the House of Representatives to-day. Instead of giving something for nothing, Mr. Coates advocated the subsidising of industries even to the extent of making good the deficiency in the wages of (he individual worker. "Tho Government has not by any means been frank in placing before the House the position so far ;is tiie finances of the country arc concerned," said Mr. Coates. "It is only reasonable that members should see tho Budget before; they can usefully discuss the principle of tho flat tax proposed by the bill. Therefore, apart from drawing attention to a few of the circumstances which may result from tho setting up of the proposed fund. I feel that members 011 this side of the House arc controlled almost entirely by the fact that they have not the Government's taxing proposals to go on. "Tho Prime Minister has made it clear that there would be an estimated shortage of £3.000,000 this year. Ido not want to misinterpret him, so I will admit that tho estimate of £3,000,000 was probably a rough one." Tho Minister of Lands, the Hon E. A. Ransom-: No rougher than last year's Estimates, which proved very correct. Mr. Coates: Then, if that, is so, we can expect extra taxation amounting to £3.000,000, but I do not think that will bo so. Consideration by Committee. Continuing, Mr. Coates said that if tho Government took tho stand that the bill was a policy maesurc and should bo dealt with there and then, lie would be pre pared to discuss every phase of the question at that stage, and suggest methods of improving tho proposals, but the Min ister of Labour had clearly indicated that j tho Government would allow the bill to go to a committee, and it was possible that when the bill came back to the House it would bo a different measure. Mr. D. G. Sullivan (Labour —Avon): Do you accept tho principle of unemployment insurance ? Mr. Coates: I do not think it is tho intention of the bill to suggest unemployment insurance. Mr. Coates complained that the Government had not supplied tho House with up-to-date figures regarding unemployment and with details of its experiences in finding work for the unemployed. It wnuid be wiser in this country at this stago to taper off borrowing. Unemployment was inclined to dictate a policy which would lead the country into an unsound position; in other words, money would be borrowed and spent on projects which would later be found to bo uneconomic. If the money were raised in New Zealand and care were taken to see that it were well spent, that would be a. better policy than getting easy money and sending it easily. Cost of Collection. Another important feature of the bill was the question of sustenance allowances. The Minister had not given any estimate as to how that proposal was likely to work out. The Minister had certainly said that between £550,000 and £600,000 would be raised by means of the flat tax, but he had not given the cost of collecting the tax and had not indicated how it would be spent. There were 5300 registered unemployed to-day, and at 21s a week, taking account also of the wives and children of tho unemployed, Mr. Coates estimated the cost of providing the sustenance allowances would be about £9OOO a week. A man could claim t.he allowance for 13 consecutive weeks and could then go off the allowance for a fortnight, and then come back to it. Considering those circumstances, it would appear that about £700.000 a year would be spent in sustenance allowances. "The very last step wo should take should be the creation of auv fund that could be interpreted as a 'dole,' " declared Mr. Coates. "We know what has happened elsewhere once such a fund is established. There will be an immediate swelling 111 the numbers of those seeking assistance. We 011 this side f'l the House are clearly opposed to anything in the nature of a 'dole.' The principle is wrong and should not be enunciated. Subsidising Industry.

"Li this country, we have to follow the principle of no work, no pay. I suggest I we could usefully, and with some practical benefit, consider a scheme for subsidising industrv, or ior subsidising tho deficiency •n the wages of those engaged in industries, and so avoid tho pernicious system of tho 'dole.' " Mr. W. Nash (Labour —llutt): What is your definition of a "dole?" Mr. Coates: Anything that is likely to create a band of people who get sustenance without any effort on their pait. I take it that every man out of work wants to find work, and it would be bettei to assist industry by a contribution from the fund rather than by giving money for nothing. "The House, in my opinion, would bo wiso to avoid that," said Mr. Coates, "and sco if it cannot bit on a scheme to develop industries, even if wo liavo to supply the deficiency in money to the individual worker. We must, not let our hearts run away with our heads. In the last resort there is" provision already for the giving of assistance through tho hospital and charitable aid boards, and it would bo better for the Government to assist those boards rather than set up new machinery with possible duplication. Mr. W. J Jordan (Labour—Manukau): Ts that not a "dole?" Mr. Coates: it is a last resort. We should not let people starve The Minister of Public Works, the Hon W 15 Taverner: You are against that portion of the bill which provides for a sustenancg allowance'! Mr. Coates: Yes. Mr. Taverner: Definitely! Mr. Coates: Yes. You can write tha.. down. We would prefer to see assistance given to industry. ° The Pi line Minister, the Hon. G. W. Forbes: There is power for the Unemployment Board to do that.

Payment for Relief Work. Mr. (Vwites declared that unemployment relief work should not bo made attractive. It appeared that the Government had definitely embraced in tlie bill some, of Iho recommendations of the Returned Soldiers' Rehabilitation Commission, lie did not think the returned soldiers would consider that the provisions in the bill concerning them amounted to the best that could bo done. The Minister of Labour, the lion. S. G. Smith: It. is a start. Mr. Co,ties: It is a start they will not appreciate Summarising his points of criticism, Mr Contes said firstly tho Government had given no foundation on which to base consideration of tho measure. Tho financial position of the country and tho taxing proposals of tho country should first lie known. The system of sustenance allowances was wrong, and the administrative costs should be announced. Mi'. Smith: Those will be, the expenses of the board, plus the small cost of collecting the levy. Mr. Coates: Tho small cost? It seems possible that tho cost of collection may be as high A3 30 per cent.